City
Council Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2015
1. Roll
Call
Mayor Roe called the meeting to
order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten,
McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan
were also present.
2. Pledge
of Allegiance
3. Approve
Agenda
Mayor Roe noted the amended agenda
for tonight's meeting, provided as a bench handout, removing Business Action
Item. 14.b clarifying requirements as part of the process that a seven-day
period was needed between the public hearing and formal action on the proposed
cable franchise ordinance.
City Manager Trudgeon noted staff's
request to remove Business Action Item 14.b (abatement - from bench handout
agenda) as the work had been completed today, and unresolved City Code
violations resolved.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
4. Public
Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak.
5. Council
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe noted the launch of "Speak Up, Roseville" and briefly described this additional website and link
from the City's website as another opportunity to receive public input. Mayor Roe
advised that questions could be addressed to the City's Communications Manager
Garry Bowman at 651/792-7027 or online.
Mayor Roe announced upcoming mental
health and/or substance abuse training sponsored by the Beyond the Yellow
Ribbon effort, and hosted by the National Association for Mental Illness (NAMI)
organization, with the November event specifically focused on military members,
families and caregivers.
6. Recognitions,
Donations and Communications
7. Approve
Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting
and those revisions from Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten were incorporated
into the draft presented in the Council packet.
a.
Approve October 19, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember McGehee submitted her requested corrections
as a bench handout; with those corrections to the October 19, 2015 meeting
minutes accepted as presented, with the exception of that correction on page
21, line 40 previously corrected in Mayor Roe's submittal. Also, the proposed
correction from Councilmember McGehee (page 12, line 30) was actually noted to
be a correction to line 20).
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the October 19,
2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 10, Lin 13 (Etten)
Typographical correction: change
to read "a 70-80" hour work week
·
Page 12, Lin 20 (McGehee)
Change to read: "problem in
allowing them to continue[ing] as [they have been] [such].
While not having any"
·
Page 21, Lin 40 (Roe)
·
In addition to Mayor Roe's previously submitted corrections,
delete "suggested to" from the sentence.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve October 26, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember McGehee submitted her requested corrections
as a bench handout; with those corrections to the October 26, 2015 meeting
minutes accepted as presented by Councilmember McGehee.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the October 26,
2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 4, Line 3 (Laliberte)
Delete Councilmember Laliberte's
name from the roll call vote.
·
Page 18, Line 39 (Willmus)
Typographical correction: change
"nuisance" to "noise" ordinance.
·
Page 23, Lines 40-42 (Roe)
Delete entire "Motor Vehicle
Rental/Leasing" paragraph.
·
Page 24, Lines 1-3 (Roe)
In addition to Mayor Roe's
previously submitted corrections, correct to read: "Without objection this use
was changed from C to NP in the CMU-1 district."
·
Page 24, Lines 31-32 (Roe)
Correct to read: "Without
objection, the Table was revised to show C in the CMU-1 district."
·
Page 25, Line 8 (Roe)
Typographical correction: End
sentence with "CMU-1 District)" and delete extraneous numbers/letters.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
Abstentions: Laliberte.
Motion carried.
8. Approve Consent Agenda
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the
Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA)
and related attachments, dated November 9, 2015.
a.
Approve Payments
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the following
claims and payments as presented and detailed.
|
ACH Payments
|
$588,495.29
|
|
79359-79543
|
1,207,556.53
|
|
Total
|
$1,796,051.82
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of business and
other licenses and permits for terms as noted.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,
approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA
and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated October
31, 2015.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Approve Twin Lakes Area East Collector Improvements Preliminary Design
Professional Services Contract (City Project #16-11)
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,
award of a professional services contract (Attachment B) with SFR Consulting
Group for the Twin Lakes Area East Collector Improvements Preliminary Design
(City Project #16-11) in an amount not to exceed $80,182; and authorize
the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Approve Twin Lakes Area Traffic Signals Professional Services Contract
(City Project #16-12)
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,
award of a professional services contract (Attachment B) with SFR Consulting
Group for the Twin Lakes Area Traffic Signals (City Project #16-12) in an
amount not to exceed $49,951; and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the documents.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
f. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed and Authorize
Final Payment on the Fairview Pathway Project (a/k/a Northeast Suburban Campus
Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project) - Phase II
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11266 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final
Contract Acceptance - Fairview Pathway Project (Northeast Suburban Campus
Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project) "Phase II;" and authorizing final payment.
Councilmember
Laliberte noted in Phase I of this project, there was an additional agreement
needed to address Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, causing her
to question if that was the same case with Phase II and why Ramsey County, the
City and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) are not in concert
with those standards.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Public Works Director Mark Culver responded that there had been a
number of issues and changes industry-wide with ADA changes for pedestrian ramp
design, including truncated domes and slope and landing pad requirements.
While not having been in Roseville at the time of Phase I, Mr. Culver stated his
understanding in the delay at that time was simply a need to update the
specifications to meet newly-adopted MnDot standards as required by federally
funded project dollars.
However, Mr.
Culver reported that all agencies and jurisdictions were now up-to-date and
using the same standards; advising that it was standard practice for the City
to update all pedestrian ramps on city projects, but at the time of Phase I all
local agencies had not yet adopted MnDOT standards.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
g. Authorize Use of HGACBuy Program for Purchase of New Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to utilize the Houston-Galveston Area
Council (HGAC)Buy Program for purchase of the replacement of Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA's).
For future reference, Councilmember McGehee pointed out that
this would involve a sizable expense for the City while at the same time the
Fire Department was moving to all full time staff requiring fewer turnout gear
and apparatus set upgrades versus the current needs for forty paid-on-call
firefighters.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Confirm Acquisition of Properties located at County Road C and
Victoria Street and Disposal of Property located at 2668 Lexington Avenue are
Consistent with Roseville Comprehensive Plan
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded,
receipt of the report and findings of the Planning Commission that the proposed
acquisition of subject parcels at County Road C and Victoria Street and disposal
of subject parcels at 2668 Lexington Avenue are in compliance with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
i.
Certify Unpaid and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11267 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges
for Payable 2015 or Beyond."
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
9. Consider
Items Removed from Consent
10. General
Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Approve 2016 Fee Schedule
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the recommended
adjustments to existing fees, as well as establishment of several new fees as
detailed in the RCA and the Draft 2016 Fee Schedule (Attachment C) dated November
9, 2015. Mr. Miller advised that city staff overseeing these specific
functions were available in the audience to describe any fees in more detail
beyond that included in the RCA and at request of the City Council.
Rental
Registration (Housing) (d) - (Page 3 of Attachment C)
Councilmember
Willmus noted that the rental registration fee for a typical single-family home
was increasing from $25 to $35 annually, with a footnote regarding the
rationale for the increase due to technology fees.
Community
Development Director Paul Bilotta advised that a 2% software fee was being
added for all permits, noting that some of that increase was included in the
fee itself rather than showing as a separate line item (e.g. building permits).
Councilmember
Willmus expressed concern regarding increasing fees, noting that when the
rental registration process had been initiated, it was intended that the
registration of single-family rentals was of benefit for the City in knowing
the location of those rentals. However, Councilmember Willmus cautioned raising
the fee incrementally and inadvertently dissuading homeowners/landlords renting
those single-family homes to register by making it cost-prohibitive for them to
do so.
Outdoor
Storage/Display Permits - Outdoor Temporary Events (page 14)
Councilmember
Willmus questioned how and if this affected a local hardware store and their
Christmas tree sales fee.
Community
Development Director Bilotta responded that changes have evolved in outdoor
displays over the last year with some locations having 11-12 occurrences per
year, with staff still having to inspect each site for each occurrence. If a
tent is involved, Mr. Bilotta noted that the Fire Chief also inspected them.
Therefore, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was recommending the proposed fee
schedule for those occurrences less than 10, but if staff was required to inspect
additional occurrences as listed, costs would increase accordingly as noted. For
the benefit of the City Council and the public, Mr. Bilotta clarified that this
referred to days, not just occurrences, but addressing multiple sales
throughout the year.
Mayor Roe sought
further clarification that staff was not recommending adding Christmas tree
sales/registration as a separate type of fee back into the fee schedule.
City Manager
Trudgeon and Community Development Director Bilotta both confirmed Mayor Roe's
understanding.
Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of this recommendation to address the number of
occurrences.
Councilmember
Etten also spoke in support of the recommendation, opining that 1-5 occurrences
addressed the needs of most businesses in Roseville, and may actually lower
costs for those businesses.
Councilmember
McGehee asked staff for an estimate on the number of rental inspections staff
performed.
Mr. Bilotta
responded that he estimated 600-700 registrations for single-family rentals
annually; with Mayor Roe clarifying that this involved registrations only, not
inspections.
Building
Permit and Plan Review Fees (Page 10)
Councilmember
Etten noted the fee schedule, and text for "Plan Review Fee" following it, and
references to $7,000 and then $15,000 in parentheses after that, seeking to
make sure they were in agreement.
Multi-Family
Rental Licensing Appeals to City Council (page 11)
Councilmember
Etten sought staff's rationale to charge for an appeal, whether based on staff
time or how defined; and if it was consistent with other appeal fees.
Community
Development Director Bilotta noted there was currently no fee for rental
licensing appeals, and only one appeal had been received to-date. However, as
staff went through the process for just that one appeal earlier this summer,
Mr. Bilotta reported that it resulted in a considerable amount of work, with no
fee to apply to that additional staff time. Therefore, Mr. Bilotta noted it
was being brought forward for the City Council's consideration unless they
preferred to leave it without a fee.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta clarified that some appeal processes were subject to
fees, while others currently were not.
Councilmember Etten questioned the rationale in asking a multi-family rental
owner to pay for the registration/inspection process, and then to pay if they
choose to appeal the program.
Mayor Roe
suggested that the appeal purpose was intended as the landlord/owner stating that
he didn't agree with the classification; and admitted he wasn't sure he
philosophically disagreed with assigning a fee to appeal.
Other than those
items noted, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of staff's recommendations as
presented.
By consensus,
Councilmembers agreed that the leaf collection fee should be removed due to
discontinuation of that program in 2016.
Public Comment
Roger Hess, Jr.,
1906 Wagner Place
Since fees are
supposed to be based on actual city expense, Mr. Hess opined that it would be
nice if those calculations were included so the public could be aware of how
fees are developed, and presented along with the fee schedule itself or in some
form of documentation. Without that information available, Mr. Hess opined
that fees could be perceived as arbitrary.
Mr. Hess
questioned some of the fees included for insignificant things (e.g. gas pumps,
pool tables) which seemed to create a small expense for staff and the city to
monitor. However, Mr. Hess noted the considerable expense generated by big box
retail and suggested an associated fee be applied to those situations if the intent
was to have fees correspond to expenses.
Mayor Roe thanked
Mr. Hess for his suggestions.
City Council Discussion
In response to
Mr. Hess' suggestion to provide transparency to the public on the rationale for
fees and adjustment of those fees, Mayor Roe noted that some fees were dictated
by state statute, and that could provide useful information going forward as
well in providing rationale.
Water Meter Program
Fees (Page 12)
Mayor Roe
referenced an email provided to the City Council by Public Works Director
Culver last week related to water meter reading fees; and addressing Councilmember
Willmus' questions on a fee recommended by staff for denial of access to water
meters.
Mr. Culver
responded that the intent with this fee is to dissuade properties in Roseville
that, for various reasons, were not accessible to staff to read the water meter.
At this time, Mr. Culver reported that the only current method available is to
shut off water services to those properties, and noted staff's hesitancy to do
so depending on the time or year, weather, or other circumstances in a
particular home. Mr. Culver stated that the proposed fee for denying that
access was intended to somehow incent those property owners to provide that access
other than shutting off their water service. Mr. Culver provided several examples
of these situations, including a meter built into a wall or behind something
that didn't allow staff access, with the homeowner nonchalant in their concern
about this lack of access leaving staff without any means to incent them to
allow access to the meter.
Multi-Family
Rental Licensing - Appeal to Council Fee (Page 11)
As brought
forward by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember McGehee stated she could see both
sides, agreeing with her colleague as well as staff's rationale.
As part of the
discussion on fees for appeals, Councilmembers and staff considered appeals for
other situations (e.g. variance appeals - page 15); the amount of staff and
City Attorney time that may apply depending on their technicality through that
appeal process; and the potential that the appeal process may be undertaken
every six months for the rental inspection process as scheduled, and could
involve multiple challenges.
Specific to the
multi-family rental licensing appeal, Mr. Bilotta advised that if the appeal
was tied to the actual amount of work involved by staff, the fee may be as high
as $400 to $500, depending on the number of challenges, and staff needing to
pull various sections of code for reference, and/or involving review by other
agencies to determine if staff's interpretation is correct. Under those circumstances,
Mr. Bilotta stated it was staff's belief that a $50 appeal fee was more than
fair.
Given staff's
additional comments, Councilmember Etten proposed no change in staff's
recommendation; and the recommended fee was supported by consensus.
Dog/Cat Licenses
(page 1)
Regarding the fee
structure for 2-year versus lifetime licenses, Councilmember Willmus reiterated
the concerns he'd initially expressed, when the intent is pet owners to
register and provide documentation of vaccinations. However, with these fees,
remaining the same in 2015 to 2016, Councilmember Willmus opined that they were
cost-prohibitive and questioned if they were serving the intent for public
safety and welfare with the current fee structure.
Mayor Roe spoke
to the structure of the fees, with cost savings for sterilized and
micro-chipped pets as the least expensive approach for a pet owner, opining
that a $5 fee for a two-year or lifetime, sterilized and micro chipped pet
shouldn't be an impediment other than the cost for having those veterinary
services performed. Mayor Roe clarified the city was not attempting to do
other than incent pet owners to provide sterilization and micro-chipping, with
the lifetime fees ultimately costing less over the life of a pet than the incremental
two-year fees, even for non-sterilized or micro-chipped pets.
Councilmember
Willmus questioned the cost to the city for a lifetime license.
Mayor Roe opined
that the lifetime license was still less expensive than multiple two-year
licenses, based on past discussion, the intent of the fee was not necessarily
to cover the cost but rather to encourage sterilization and micro-chipping pets
for the health, welfare of and cost to the community in general. Mayor Roe
noted that the fees he had not been changed since their implementation in 2008
and had not been made aware of any responses that the fees were problematic.
Mr. Miller
indicated that he had not received any negative responses on the dog and cat
license fees at the staff level either.
Councilmember
McGehee expressed her agreement in principle with Councilmember Willmus, but
noted there was a cost to the community to consider as well.
Councilmember
Willmus provided his rationale in raising the question whether it was more
appropriate that the city was further serving the public interest for health,
safety and welfare by knowing animals are vaccinated or if the fee was seen as
a punitive approach for someone not choosing to alter their pet. Councilmember
Willmus opined that the health and safety aspect, from his perspective, would impact
that.
To advocate the
opposite side, Mayor Roe noted that the question of the health and safety of
animals was also part of the picture in addressing their exposure in the
community, additional strays to deal with, and litters of animals outside the
system and creating additional problems in the community as well as negatively
affecting those animals. Mayor Roe noted that some fees may not provide known
costs, but could also be applied to dissuade other less desirable actions as
well.
A brief
discussion was held on licensing for horses (page 2) with city code still
having provision for horses in Roseville depending on acreage, and potential interests
of some citizens in an equestrian amenity.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1484 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2016 Fee Schedule;" amended as follows:
·
Remove leaf pick-up fee due to discontinuation of that
program
· Correct discrepancy amount between $7,000 and $15,000 as
noted by Councilmember Etten
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: Willmus.
Motion carried.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1484 (Attachment B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Summary Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule, Adopting the 2016 Fee
Schedule."
Roll Call (Super Majority)
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
For the record, City Manager Trudgeon apologized for not
having page and/or line numbering on the draft fee schedule; but clarified that
they had been provided by Finance Director Miller in his submission but were
apparently lost somewhere in the translation.
b.
Consider Adoption of Ordinance Regarding Wildlife Management in Roseville
At the request of
Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized changes made by staff since
the last discussion, based on City Council direction and public comment, as
detailed in the RCA dated November 9, 2015. Mr. Trudgeon further noted the
draft "Deer Population Management Program and Policy" also updated based on
that direction.
Councilmember
Etten thanked staff for the detail they put into this, and their responses to
the City Council and community, opining he found it well put together.
Councilmember
McGehee, even though an opponent, seconded those comments, and expressed
appreciation for staff's clarity and the revisions made.
Public Comment
Written
comment was received via email from Jane & Bob Spartz, 649 Heinel Drive,
provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, in
support of managing the deer population.
Roger Toogood,
601 Terrace Court
Mr. Toogood
expressed his personal appreciation to the City Council as well as the
appreciation of the fifty-plus residents having called him over the last three
years seeking this resolution. Mr. Toogood thanked the City Council and staff
for their work, along with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke and the
Commission for their work; and asked that the City Council pass the ordinance
and management plan as presented.
Roger Hess,
Jr., 1906 Wagner Place
While it may be
too late in the process, Mr. Hess suggested the City Council consider in the
future, rather than hunting deer, finding a wooded area to capture and fence in
deer for feeding them versus disposing of them. Mr. Hess suggested a "Friends
of the Deer" program, referencing an example in the City of Hutchinson, MN as
another potential city amenity.
Mayor Roe
suggested one minor language revision to the draft Ordinance (Attachment B) - page 1, line 22 to change "unwanted" to "undesirable."
By consensus,
this recommended language revision was supported by the council.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1485 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance
Creating Title 4, Chapter 411, An Ordinance Relating to the Management of Wildlife
in the City;" amended to revise page 1, line 22 from "unwanted" to
"undesirable" concentrations of wild animals" and a typographical correction
(line 37 - Laliberte) to remove the duplicate word "in."
Mayor Roe echoed the statements made by his colleagues and during public
comment, commending staff for the process having proceeded in a respectful
manner from those on both sides of the issue. Mayor Roe expressed his hope
that the ordinance and plan/policy would work out well for the community while
also maintaining the health of the local deer population rather than creating
an unhealthy situation for them.
At the request of
Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified rationale in retaining Section
503.10 (Use of Bow and Arrow) should a hunt ever be indicated in the future, as
further referenced in Section 411.04 (Deer Management Plan), lines 80-83.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion carried.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1485 (Attachment C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Relating to the Management of Wildlife in the City."
Roll Call (Super Majority)
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the City of Roseville Deer Population Management Program
and Policy (Attachment B) as presented.
At the request of
Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe reviewed the process if and when a deer hunt
was ever needed. Mayor Roe noted that as stipulated in the ordinance and
addressed in the Plan/Policy, any proposed hunt would need to come before the
City Council for public awareness and formal action.
With Councilmember
Laliberte noting how vague specific historical numbers were versus the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) loading; Mayor Roe advised that the language
as adopted provided this or future City Councils the ability use whichever
criteria was preferred at the time based on practical application.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion carried.
11. Presentations
12. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearing to Consider Approving the 2016 Liquor License Renewals
At the request of
Mayor Roe, and as detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Miller reviewed this
annual renewal process. However, unlike past years, Mr. Miller noted that
approximately one-third of the City's existing establishments had yet to turn
in their paperwork, which may precipitate an additional public hearing at a
future meeting. Mr. Miller cautioned that these remaining licensees delayed
this renewal process at their own peril, and for the record, noted that of the
eighty-one current licenses in effect, staff was presenting fifty-two for
consideration tonight based on the completion and submittal of necessary
paperwork.
Mayor Roe noted
that some establishments had multiple licenses as well.
As part of the
City Council's consideration, Mr. Miller noted that there had been two liquor
compliance failures in 2015 as addressed in the RCA; but advised that all those
current liquor license establishments had met all statutory and local city code
requirements, with staff in the process of completing background checks. Based
on the information submitted to-date, Mr. Miller recommended approval of those
renewals listed in Attachment A to the RCA.
For those having
yet to submit their paperwork, Councilmember Willmus questioned if those
licenses would automatically expire the end of 2015.
Mr. Miller
responded affirmatively, and advised staff that each had received follow-up
notice from the city on more than one occasion, alerting that they were late
submitting their paperwork. Mr. Miller noted this was a most unusual circumstance,
with all submittals received in time for last year's renewal process.
Mayor Roe asked
that staff continue to follow-up with those remaining establishments.
Mayor Roe opened
and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the purpose of
hearing public comment on 2016 Liquor License Renewals; with no one appearing
for or against.
14. Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Approve/Deny 2016 Liquor License Renewals
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of 2016 liquor license
renewals as presented in the RCA dated November 9, 2016 (Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
12. Public
Hearings (continued)
b.
Public Hearing to Consider Century Link Cable Television
Ordinance
Mayor Roe
introduced the North Suburban Cable Commission (NSCC) attorney, Mr. Michael R.
Bradley, with the firm of Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC to make this
presentation, as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated November 9, 2015.
Attorney
Michael R. Bradley, of Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC
Mr. Bradley
reviewed the history and process to-date for this second cable franchise
application, noting that each of the nine member cities would be holding
similar public hearings as part of this approval process.
Mr. Bradley noted
that this franchise agreement was similar, by requirement, to that currently
held by Comcast; noted that only one franchisee/operator had been operating
since 1983 with this Century Link franchise the first competitive franchise
to-date.
Mr. Bradley
referenced the Findings of Fact (Attachment A) recommended by the NSCC that
would be adopted simultaneously with the franchise agreement if approved; the
draft Cable Television Franchise Ordinance itself (Attachment B); and including
the voluntary commitments negotiated with Century Link.
Mr. Bradley
highlighted various aspects included as part of the franchise including reasonable
upgrades and expansions needed by Century Link; five-year build-out term tied
to the franchise term of five years subject to renewal depending on whether or
not the build-out schedule was met; compliance with the Federal Cable Act and
NSCC stipulations to avoid "cherry picking" or "red lining" by choosing
wealthier areas of a community to provide service to and applicable penalties
that could be imposed as necessary.
Further
highlights included the State Cable Act and how it addressed franchise fees and
"PEG" commitments (Public Education and Government Access channels); area to
be served; availability of sixteen access channels, more than currently provided
by Comcast; upgrading of the system over time (High Definition); public service
announcement capabilities; channel placement; and unique programming brought
forward by the NSCC for complimentary service to all member city halls and the
NSCC office for program origination to monitor video feeds, with a potential to
serve additional city buildings in the future.
Mr. Bradley
concluded by stating that this agreement compared similarly with that of
Comcast other than the term of the agreement, indemnification provisions for
this franchise that Comcast didn't currently have.
Mayor Roe added
that the franchise fees went to each member city, with those member cities
contributing a portion of the fee to the NSCC to manage the franchise, with the
City of Roseville's current franchise fee at approximately $400,000 or more, of
which approximately $100,000 to $150,000 was paid to the NSCC to fund
management of operations; with the PEG fee going directly to the NSAC toward
the operation of C-TV and related channel funding.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Bradley defined "mosaic" as the Channel 15 government/educational
access channel, that would provide one main video feed of that open channel,
with a number of live screens showing fifteen other channels, and via a remote,
a customer could choose whichever option they wanted to watch and when
selecting it, it would come up to the full screen.
While School
District 623 was mentioned, Councilmember Willmus noted that a large portion of
the Roseville community was serviced by School District 621, and sought to make
sure this agreement incorporated their programming as well.
Mr. Bradley
acknowledged that it included them, with the City of Mounds View and the
Village of St. Anthony included as member cities that would incorporate those school
districts and their activities and programs as well.
Specific to the
five-year build-out, Councilmember Etten questioned how the 15% had been
arrived at for the first years of the franchise agreement, and asked for an
explanation of how that percentage worked.
Mr. Bradley
stated that it was ultimately a negotiated number that Century Link would not
agree to a higher initial mandatory build, which was the source for considerable
discussion. While this build-out number appeared to be a fairly standard
provision nationally and for Century Link, Mr. Bradley addressed how the NSCC
had arrived at addressing more aggressive mandatory build-out through the acceleration
language included in the franchise agreement, beginning early in 2016 and
moving quarterly for Century Link to provide numbers of who is receiving their
service, which Century Link was projecting at a much greater percentage than
15%. Therefore, if Century Link is able to return to the NSCC indicating a
much higher percentage being served based on market success or penetration rates,
Mr. Bradley advised that then their mandatory build-out requirement increases
to 75%, which would be addressed through quarterly meetings between the NSCC
and Century Link.
At the request of
Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bradley opined that the NSCC intended to incent
Century Link, since they will be the second entity entering this market
currently served by an established cable provider having had no competition
to-date. Mr. Bradley further opined that Century Link may have a difficult
task ahead of them under those circumstances.
In conclusion,
and as a board member representing the City of Roseville on the NSCC, Mayor Roe
stated that the feeling put forth by legal counsel to the NSCC was that this
franchise agreement met requirements, but indemnification was available if
challenged, and the agreement addressed those costs for the NSCC and member
cities.
Mr. Bradley
concurred with Mayor Roe.
Public
Comment
Patrick Haggerty,
Century Link Representative
On behalf of
Century Link, Mr. Haggerty expressed their excitement to finally be at this
point in the process and offering some competition in the market place, and
provided a brief history of that process from his perspective. Mr. Haggerty expressed
his and the firm's respect and gratitude for the privilege of working with the
NSCC and their professionalism throughout the process as they considered the
value of bringing competition to their member cities and residents.
Mayor Roe closed
the public hearing at approximately 7:39 p.m. with no one else appearing for or
against.
Even though this
is the statutory public hearing, Mayor Roe reviewed the next step, with the
ordinance coming to the City Council for consideration and formal action at
their November 16, 2016 meeting, at which time the ordinance will be considered
and additional public comment heard.
As a side note
related to the Comcast process, Mayor Roe noted that their franchise agreement
remained under extension, in the first year of a two year extension, with franchise
agreement renewal negotiations having started approximately four years ago.
Mayor Roe advised that the Comcast's intent is to now go back to the formal
process (versus the informal process) laid out by federal cable laws originally
begun in 2013 before the administrative law judge. Mayor Roe advised that the
proposed term for the Comcast franchise renewal was ten years rather than
fifteen, with the potential for extensions as needed. Mayor Roe advised that
he would keep the City Council and public updated as things move forward.
13. Budget Items
14. Business Items (Action Items)
c.
Discuss 2016 Policy Priority Planning Document
City Manager Trudgeon provided an updated and revised 2016
Policy Priority Planning (PPP) document based on previous discussions and City
Council directions. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his hope that this new format
provided more clarity. Mr. Trudgeon noted that one unfilled area was in
economic development, and staff was seeking direction on that matter. Given
the time of year, Mr. Trudgeon expressed hope that the document could be
approved by year-end in order to move into 2016 with a one-year action plan,
which could then be revisited as other initiatives may occur.
Councilmember Etten stated he really liked this format
compared to the previous one especially identify who was doing the work and a
timetable for when it was being accomplished. Councilmember Etten opined this
would allow everyone to track progress better.
Specific to focusing on SE Roseville (page 2 - Attachment
A), Councilmember Etten noted previous discussions and presentations at the
Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and suggested some of those
previous investments and educational efforts could be brought forward to inform
City Council discussions moving forward as background material and in
identifying specific issues.
Specific to the Karen SE Roseville Working Group and
"Creating a SE Roseville Redevelopment Plan" (page 3), Councilmember Etten
sought clarification from staff if the intent was to be more specific or more
generic.
City Manager Trudgeon responded that his intent was focused
on the Karen Working Group, but as he struggled in reformatting the document,
he began to question whether this was a subset of the SE Roseville plan and
therefore attempted to leave some room to incorporate the broader picture into
the document, while remaining unsure as to how the pieces fit.
Councilmember Etten opined that the Karen community and ways
to help them be more successful should be incorporated (e.g. safe education and
living environments), but suggested other redevelopment goals and the scope of
the Working Group may adjust to other cultures and/or needs as well.
Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments of Councilmember
Etten, opining she saw the Karen community as a subset, even though there were
a number of unique issues for them. As the formal group begins to identify
those unique things and goals, and as that group got more established, Councilmember
McGehee suggested she could see them merging. At this point, however, Councilmember
McGehee stated that she saw them as two separate things.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that the Karen Working Group was
already functioning and would remain ahead of the other process.
Specific to creating a Redevelopment Plan versus another Working
Group, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern if the intent was to not
retain the existing Karen-specific Working Group. Councilmember Laliberte
agreed with Councilmember Etten, that it was time to consider a broader focus
and group with a new redevelopment plan beyond the Karen community's interests.
Mayor Roe suggested that was the rationale in separating the
"Working Group" and the "Redevelopment Plan" for SE Roseville. Mayor Roe noted
that the first thing listed under the timeline was to identify stakeholders to
get it moving forward.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested factoring in the Smart
Growth America report into the 2016 plan if it was available.
City Manager Trudgeon advised that he anticipated the Smart
Growth information by the end of 2015, as well as identifying stakeholders and
issues. Mr. Trudgeon opined that he considered this not just reporting but
engaging the community, and feeding it all into the scope of what should be
undertaken: planning and implementation.
Mayor Roe asked City Manager Trudgeon to add that
information into the timeline such as discussing and considering incorporating
it into the work during the first quarter of 2016. Based on his recollection
of the Smart Growth America workshop, Mayor Roe noted the report talked about
identifying preliminary steps and plans to go forward and identify stakeholders
and participants. Therefore, Mayor Roe further suggested adding under those
responsible (other participants) East Metro Strong, the Chamber of Commerce,
and accelerate Ramsey County in order to acknowledge them as participants in
the report process. Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that
something should be available from the Smart Growth America report to allow a
response to that report.
City Manager Trudgeon noted Councilmember Etten's suggestion
to include the previous work of the HRA, advising he would add that as a bullet
point to utilize previous work in this area to help scope the work moving
forward.
Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that she wanted to avoid
parallel actions and make sure things were brought under one broad trajectory.
Councilmember Etten agreed with that concept; however, he
supported separating the formalized Karen Working Group in SE Roseville with
the broader redevelopment efforts in that area. Councilmember Etten stated
that he anticipated that connection based on who was involved in that working
group and the interest of other organizations.
In the first area of the Redevelopment Plan for SE
Roseville, Councilmember Etten suggested to "others" under responsible parties,
area businesses in addition to the Chamber and East Metro Strong. As an
example, Councilmember Etten noted the involvement of the owner of the strip
mall in that area, seeking to include those stakeholders in efforts.
Specific to the Karen Working Group, Councilmember Etten noted
how informative and helpful it would be to get their report of what was going
on, and by having that report by the first quarter of 2016, what had been done,
what needed to be done, and where things were moving, in order to inform the
community and City Council. Councilmember Etten also noted a typographical
error on page 3 of Attachment A, missing "municipalities."
Councilmember McGehee stated she continued to be struck by the
of projects the City Council has signed up for, suggesting task forces might be
included to utilize community expertise to get as needed information - whether
businesses or residents - to alleviate that pressure.
Mayor Roe suggested task forces would come into plan for specific
areas of interest moving out from the broader groups currently identified.
Councilmember Laliberte noted comments at the October 19th
City Council meeting that would apply to all pages of this revised document, in
adding or identifying what tools would be used to measure progress and whether
or not things were on track. Councilmember Laliberte suggested adding a column
or way to incorporate those tools and measurement pieces. Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten that it would be nice to have a report
for touch points for each page.
City Manager Trudgeon recognized that was a great suggestion
for a status report for each focus area. Mr. Trudgeon reported that an update
on the Karen Working Group could certainly be made available early in 2016.
Specific to SE Roseville Redevelopment, Mayor Roe questioned
whether that goal/focus area was appropriate, or if it should include the
broader topic of revitalization. Mayor Roe noted that some things may not be
redevelopment, but were part of revitalizing that part of the community and
that of the neighboring communities as well. Mayor Roe questioned if
revitalization should be added to the title, or included as a specific focus of
redevelopment Also under "others," Mayor Roe suggested adding in all or most
categories "businesses" and "residents."
City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the intent of the
"responsible staff/commission" column was intended to identify the primary or
lead city departments of commissions doing the work but was in no way intended
to be an exhaustive list of everyone involved, which he anticipated would
continue to evolve.
Mayor Roe suggested that once the stakeholders or
participants in the process had been identified, that should be included beyond
simply being identified as stakeholders.
Councilmember Laliberte further noted the need to bring
those stakeholders into the conversation by not only involving them but also
reporting to them, and if this document was intended to work and evolve, that
needed to be part of the process.
Once those stakeholders are identified, Mayor Roe suggested
some type of abbreviated measurement for each action step reported on this
document, including identifying stakeholders and listing them as well.
In looking at the Housing and Redevelopment goals across the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (pages 3 - 4, Attachment A), Councilmember Etten
noted move-up housing opportunities and questioned if the Planning Commission
should also be included as part of that decision-making and whether or not
certain uses were allowed in that district. Councilmember Etten noted that,
under "commissions," the Finance Commission and Economic Development Authority
Commissions were listed, but Planning may also be a good addition.
Mayor Roe and Councilmembers concurred with that idea.
Councilmember Willmus cautioned that the Planning Commission's
statutory role needed to be considered, noting their need to stick to land use
considerations, not factoring in whether or not their action may improve the
number or jobs in the city. Councilmember Willmus noted this may be
appropriate before the City Council but not the Planning Commission
deliberations.
Mayor Roe concurred; however, he supported the Planning
Commission's involvement in the process as part of determining if and when
zoning code or processes needed to be changed, allowing them to weigh in, thus
his support for Councilmember Etten's suggestion to include them. Mayor Roe
noted that many of the responsible parties listed may involve some appropriate
and some inappropriate areas as applicable and within their areas of
expertise. However, Mayor Roe agreed that Councilmember Willmus made a good
point, the need to be clear and conscious of communicating that to the public
and advisory commissions as well.
Councilmember McGehee opined that with this and the entire
EDA proposed, Council power was at a higher level than now available for
commercial and retail development, and the area set aside for that when the
community was established. While that was done in a very deliberate and proper
regional way at that time, Councilmember McGehee further opined that it had
continued to be built upon without the benefit of a community or regional
traffic plan to address that build out and facilitate access to that area while
keeping that traffic and local traffic from moving into residential
neighborhoods. Councilmember McGehee noted that this continued to come up from
the public across the community, while other cities have policies to prevent or
assist in directing that traffic to major arteries and out of residential
areas. Councilmember McGehee expressed her strong interest in pursuing such a
traffic plan.
Mayor Roe agreed that this was a timely issue, and would be
part of the transportation plan chapter in the upcoming comprehensive plan
update over the next few years.
Regarding "propelling city-wide economic development (page
6, Attachment A), Mayor Roe suggested discussion on desired outcomes - whether
in the role of City Council or EDA - on timeline items during the first quarter
of 2016, such as "develop outcomes" as a starting point.
Willmus echoed that suggestion, whether meeting in work session
format with a process to identify outcomes or goals being sought.
Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was not advocating for a process
involving a consultant similar to that initially kicking off this process, but
an in-house discussion of this body and staff to achieve productivity.
Mayor Roe noted that, as the chair of those discussions, it
was sometimes easier to have a reasonably-priced facilitator as an option to
allow him to participate in the discussion outside managing the meeting
itself.
Specific to the "propel" wording, Councilmember Etten
suggested another term, such as "encourage" or "facilitate" or "foster."
Mayor Roe, with agreement of the City Council, suggested
staff return with this document at their earliest convenience and incorporating
the changes suggested tonight.
Process-wise, Mayor Roe suggested this may be appropriate as
part of the annual Organizational Meeting at the start of 2016, with a
potential of City Council subcommittees to work with City Manager Trudgeon on
formatting, language and other issues in the process versus having a
five-member editing process. Mayor Roe asked Councilmembers to think how they
wanted to move forward, but suggested it may be appropriate for a Polity
Priority Planning Subcommittee to deal with the nuts and bolts of this initial
document moving forward in 2016.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe
suggested additional individual Councilmember thoughts be submitted to City
Manager Trudgeon to synthesize them as appropriate or any needing direction
from the full City Council highlighted in a future RCA if necessary.
Councilmember McGehee asked why the Information Technology,
Police and Fire Departments were not included in the Infrastructure
Sustainability priority (pages 7 and 8, Attachment A) since they should be
involved in categorizing infrastructure conditions. As an example,
Councilmember McGehee referenced existing software used in the infrastructure
database.
City Manager Trudgeon responded that all departments could
be involved in each goal or focus area; however, the intent was to list the
main staff people or drivers of each priority area. Mr. Trudgeon noted that
the IT Department typically concentrated on software support versus hardware
support, but at the suggestion of Mayor Roe, agreed they could provide
expertise as to whether existing software was sufficient or if another tool may
work better.
15. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
a. Adopt Resolution Accepting Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Appointments and Discuss Economic Development Authority (EDA) Process
Community Development Director Paul Bilotta briefly reviewed
the roles and process in transferring RHRA powers, creation of an EDA and
functions involved as detailed in the RCA dated November 9, 2015. Mr. Bilotta
noted that current RHRA Attorney Martha Ingram with Kennedy & Graven was
present to answer any questions of the public or City Council. Mr. Bilotta
noted that once this was accomplished, it would essentially eliminate the RHRA
as a functioning body. Mr. Bilotta further noted the City Council would need
to confirm the zero levy going forward in 2016, allowing procedures to be put
in place and become part of normal business meetings from then on.
Mayor Roe asked how the transfer of functions from the HRA
to an EDA would impact federal grant monies or if they could be transferred to
the EDA.
Attorney Martha Ingram, Kennedy & Graven
Ms. Ingram confirmed with Mr. Bilotta that all functions of
the HRA could be transferred to the EDA including federal functions.
Regarding Mayor Roe's question about retaining the HRA to
facilitate that federal obligation, Ms. Ingram responded that if the EDA is
established, the HRA would basically die by attrition with no further action;
while Councilmembers will still be HRA members, and as those existing
Councilmembers no longer run for office or are not re-elected, with no more
HRA appointments, the membership in the HRA would eventually decrease to
nothing. Meanwhile, Ms. Ingram advised there was no particular point in having
an HRA meeting as it no longer had powers since those HRA powers had been
granted to the EDA. Ms. Ingram opined this was the more cautious and
conservative approach to let the HRA wither by attrition.
Councilmember Laliberte asked if the HRA needed to retain a
contract for City staff to serve the HRA functions.
Mr. Bilotta advised that staff's intent and recommendation
to the City Council is not to bring that forward until the procedural functions
moving from two separate boards and two separate meetings are interconnected
with the City Council, breaking out their role as an EDA to take steps as
needed in that role. As part of that, Mr. Bilotta reported that the EDA will
function to some extent as other funds already established by the City Council
through the EDA budget (e.g. Neighborhood Enhancement Program) funding on the
EDA side. Mr. Bilotta stated that he anticipated single or periodic transfer
of funds as needed and for continued operations, with everyone remaining as
city staff. As suggested in the RCA, Mr. Bilotta noted staff's recommendation
for a special planning program next year, which could be done by the City
Council in their role as Councilmembers or as an EDA to direct staff what they
wanted them to work on and brought forward as applicable.
Councilmember Laliberte opined she was anticipating a number
of housekeeping items needing done once or if the EDA is established, and asked
if a meeting would be scheduled to take care of those things for staff.
City Manager Trudgeon and Mr. Bilotta confirmed that there
were a number of informational pieces that would come forward; and as staff
reviews them, it would identify those items for staff level or those needing
consideration and/or action by the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon noted that some
of the informational items may be interesting or helpful to the City Council,
whether on a monthly or quarterly basis, and staff would seek the City
Council's input on the value of that information moving forward.
As part of that housekeeping, Councilmember Laliberte noted
the need to review programs still useful, as well as any that should be
discontinued or were redundant of other programs offered by other agencies
(e.g. Ramsey County) and re-prioritize those items.
Community Development Director Bilotta advised that as part
of the first quarter process or earlier, since most members of the City Council
had not served on the HRA board, staff would provide a report on where we're
at, the various programs and their advantages and disadvantages, and proposed
changes recommended by staff. Mr. Bilotta advised that this would also be incorporated
with or in addition to the City Council's policy priority planning document and
work to identify some of those programs that would direct some of the PPP
goals. Mr. Bilotta clarified that the first picture the City Council would receive
would serve as an educational perspective, allowing them to direct staff what
to pursue or eliminate going forward.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11268 (Revised Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Approving Mayor's Appointment of the Roseville City
Council to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville."
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.
16. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Trudgeon briefly
reviewed upcoming preliminary agendas, noting that there remained only three
more meetings before year-end.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon provided additional detail on the potential
November 16th agenda item for purchase of bus shelters. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that, from his understanding, the current owner of the bus
shelters in Roseville were getting out of that business and were proposing to
remove them from the City. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon advised staff was seeking direction
from the City Council as to their preferred course of action for possible purchase/maintenance
of the shelters, with cost estimates being prepared by Public Works Director
Culver.
17. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
As noted in her previous comments,
Councilmember McGehee addressed her interest in an overall traffic plan, based
on issues brought to her attention related to single-family rental housing in
suburbs and how extensive it was becoming, as well as problematic (e.g. University
of Northwestern College) parking in residential neighborhoods as some of those
homes turned into rentals. Councilmember McGehee also requested discussion
related to currently low interest rates and impacts on city programs and
reserve funds; with a major portion of the city's demographics living on fixed
incomes and not scheduled for COLA increases in 2016 for social security benefits.
Councilmember McGehee suggested each of these topics should be part of a
general discussion going forward into formation of the Economic Development Authority
and next year's planning efforts.
Related to single-family rentals,
Councilmember Willmus referenced a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case out of
Winona and the ability to identify geographic areas in the community in which
to impose restrictions for single-family rentals. Councilmember Willmus
suggested that discussion and the information previously provided to staff be included
as part of that rental housing review as well.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
the City of Brooklyn Park had put a moratorium in place in response.
Mayor Roe questioned the structure
of those discussions, suggesting staff provide an update on single-family
housing turning into rentals. However, Mayor Roe opined that interest rates
could be incorporated into the 2016 budget process and discussions related to
and impacting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and infrastructure funding,
as well as how it relates to residents and ties into tax rates as well.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
traffic impacts were currently and obviously tied into Rosedale Center at this
time. However, Councilmember McGehee further opined that as the community
continues to develop even while currently hosting a major area of the Twin
Cities' regional retail development, residents also needed to continue living
here and get around their own community.
18. Adjourn
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.